This Is Why Pink Is A Harmful Movie For You

Pink Movie poster

A recent movie release Nerkonda Paarvai based on a similar story of Pink is set to storm the Box office soon. let’s see a review of movies like Nerkonda Paarvai and Pink and how these are harmful…. for you.

Feminism in Gulaab Gang and in Pink

If you have already watched the Movie Pink starring Amitabh Bachchan, chances are that you have not only liked it but also agreed to what the movie tried to convey. If we go by normal movie review standards and popular formula of box office hits; this movie may grab many eyeballs and touch many hearts. This is because this time the feminist movie crew actually nailed it with a deadly weapon – victimhood of women, their tears.

The reason “Gulaab Gang”, another feminist movie starring Madhuri Dixit bombed was that it showed women as violent rowdies rather than victims and only victims. The makers of the movie Pink had carefully played with our sentiments with the most deadly weapon on earth – women tears. Especially when it comes from young good looking women, it almost gets power to vanquish anything. The very reason that we always connect to others’ pain more than anything else, this formula of showing women’s tears will probably work this time for feminists and that is most dangerous for all of us including you.

In this movie other than strong cues, like acting, dialogue etc. the creative team of Shoojit Sircar had delivered a subtle non-verbal cue that will stick in your mind. I am talking about the tattoo of flying birds on Meenal’s collarbone. A space that was focused most of the time in the movie Pink while focusing on her face and that left a silent message each time it was focused. The message is – “free her“. You may not be aware but your subconscious mind would have thought of the need to free the most modern and educated, working, urban women. Carefully watch the movie again and you will find nowhere in the movie she wore a dress where the tattoo was not visible.

So while you understand that why Pink will probably be successful, let me tell you why this movie is propagating a criminal thought and is dangerous for this society. While saying this, let me categorically state that I don’t support any crime against women, but I am against this hypocrisy around rape that this movie shows.

The movie shows that three girls who were staying in an apartment met three strangers through a common friend and on first meeting these girls not only enjoyed the free dinner offered to them but also enjoyed the free drink and agreed to go to the rooms of those strangers alone. Oh, if you have seen the movie you will also tell me how Andrea went there to go to the toilet or some other reasons shown in the movie and as Advct. Deepak Sehgal (played by Amitabh Bachchan) clearly reinforced the feminist points that neither a woman’s dress, drink behavior nor anything else could be taken as her invitation to rape or molest her. So true, and I am sure most of you have agreed to that as well, neither do I disagree, too. But I am trying to locate that fortunate guy who is a stranger to the woman had met a woman first time in his room and the woman willingly went with him (unless of course, she had other intentions), I am also yet to see any decent woman who would do that. The reason was given by three girls as they ‘thought’ those three strangers were decent.

Well, I don’t deny the fact that we may be fooled by one’s appearance or behavior and one night is not enough to know anyone. Then why did the girls go? Oh!! We are not here to judge their character. That is strictly prohibited under feminist rules and it is not fair when we are not trying to judge the boys either. In fact, this is not the harmful part of the movie.

The Harmful Pink

The harmful part of the movie comes later. It is in the crux of the issue dealt with in the movie. It is the popular feminist concept “No Means No”. That means when a woman says ‘no’ she means ‘no’ and men should respect that. There is no harm in this concept too but the movie tried to promote a crime in order to establish that.

The evidence presented in the movie by the state lawyer (with a twist the boys were shown as the plaintiff here) all goes against the girls and there was no evidence presented in the court that showed that the boys did anything wrong or tried to grab the girls. Rather one of the boys accused Andrea of trying to get intimate with him. But when the girls said that the boys were instead trying to get physical – court and all audience believed that “yes, the boys did it”. Meenal, Falak, and Andrea have justified all their allegations with the most dreaded weapon on the earth – their tears. No CCTV footage or medical evidence was presented to prove that.

To arrive at the conclusion Advct. Sehgal (Amitabh Bachchan) used drama and played with our emotions. He started asking her questions whether she was a virgin, when did she lose her virginity etc. Shocked by these kinds of questions any decent person (either male or female) feel ashamed of our court proceedings. But when he asked the final question, “what did you say to stop him” and she said “No”. Thus Amitabh in his final argument said, “she said NO your Honour, a man has to understand that a no means no…”

When a verbal statement of the girl without any other supporting evidence takes precedence over the overwhelming evidence of an attempt to murder against her and when the audience believes that to be true, is the main harm that this movie causes.

===================================================================

This movie not only tries to justify a criminal act of causing grievous injury to one person (or even murder) to someone just grabbing a woman when in reality she was openly being sexual (telling sexual jokes, how many stranger women shared sexual jokes with you on first meeting?) and touching the guys in restaurant.

====================================================================

In short, movie Pink shows the low that feminists can stoop to. The feminist crew in Rashmi Sharma Productions wanted to justify the murder of men (it is already a law in India that a woman can murder a man in order to save her from rape) on the pretext of molestation or rape and ONLY want to go unpunished. Now, those of you who liked the movie need to understand that here other criminal evidence like medical reports and another witness’ statements are NOT being considered to convict an accused. But what Pink promotes is to convict a man of the most heinous crime (that is how feminists promote rape to be) simply based on a woman’s statement. It was never asked the men if she had ever said ‘No’ and they were found guilty.

Sadly, the Bengali feminist crew and Rashmi Sharma Productions of Pink nailed it in the movie as one of their protagonist Advct. Sehgal said, – “It is the men who need protection”.

Addition on 9/19 –

Many have commented whether I consider grabbing of a woman without her consent as a crime. Of course, it is but the question here is of what magnitude. Can it justify “attempt to murder”? If yes, I want to know why are Rohtak Sisters not yet punished? Can someone help?

145 comments

For midnight calls from nursing homes to deliver babies, the women doctors including baby doctors, women surgeons, women anesthetists and other women on shift duty/ emergency calls, a male escort is a must & this is my observation for past 50 years till date . We cannot take the world that has men for granted as they too are also a part of this world as important species for granted.Certain Norms have to be followed. Today on NDTV-India , the anchor Ravish was weeping after watching this movie asking to ‘reform’ the boys.
How many boys / migrants living in rural areas will get to see this movie and get reformed , start respecting women as species.
It is supposed to be a copy of The Accused but will it Justify the original made about 20 years ago.

Don’t lie, it’s women who have been influenced heavily by feminism and want to sleep with tens of men, just to feel liberated. And equal to men. Don’t lie, stop pretending, just confess that one man is not enough and you need ten. Simple.

And what is wrong with that? I don’t know why some think that under certain conditions rape/molestation is justified. First of all MEN like YOU – kayshap2016, need to stop deciding the parameters of decency. To begin with, stop getting personal & trolling on weaker targets on random blogs.

@kayshap2016 : i am not compeletely satisfied with the way this movie has been put. But i think its none of our business to tell anyone of how many people they can sleep with or what kind of clothes they are wearing. its their chioce as long as nobody is hurt physically or emotionally and with the consent of both individuals. may it be a girl or a boy. the rules are same for both!

By that logic sam123@gmail.com what’s wrong also then in approaching a woman of “experience” with a similar proposal? I don’t know why some deify the woman without knowing the actual events or her nature/ history or as to why some SIMPletons (oops male feminists) not believing that it takes two hands to clap??
Secondly sam123@gmail.com Men (or whatever) like YOU and women should also understand that “There are no free lunches” and “that not everybody is a saint, that too just because the person’s a woman”. To begin stop demonstrating your subservience to the so called “weaker targets” on random blogs…

kasyap2016, don’t lie; you typed this from a mental asylum, don’t lie, you ended up there because you are crazy, don’t lie, that though you wanted to sleep with ten women, you couldn’t even get one, which drove you crazy.

Dear Kunal
If possible stop giving emotional conjectures about how kashyap will bring up his daughters… surely unlike your lectures he would probably ask his daughter to be independent but to give respect, and present herself accordingly to get the same and hopefully not to freeload off others and cry wolf (feminism, gynocentric laws)if otherwise! To be responsible for her own actions and perhaps expect a return for every action…
I presume it was a “meek and garelu woman” who gave birth to you and a strong and hardworking man married to her, perhaps for a longer time than the “independently egotistical” marriages which often end in divorces or separations, generally profitable to of course the “independent”, “principled” women you talk about, A selfless man who equally paid for your upbringing a your mother so that you can type dramatically exaggerated replies in your short hand grammatically erred sentences.
Just wondering how do YOU handle being a self respecting man without being subservient to the very matriarchal movement which has jeopardized the situation of our brethren.. Not to mention misrepresentations such as these (Although it’s perfectly understandable if you choose to look away in order to impress “others”….)

sounds like you are trying to justify your need for tens of women through chalking it up on all feminists . when you can have tens of women ,why can not the woman feel the need to be with tens of men . Also if you have a mother (which i highly doubt) ask her if she would have felt liberated sleeping with tens of men before meeting your father.

Truth abt the movie, soon things that these so called liberating movies promote will unleash another wave of killings, murders in name of getting Justifiable Justice @ the cost of no evidence needed, no court proceedings just on mere statement go for it – KILL & get away with anything. Just like today in name of Empowerment, many women file #fakecases, get maintenance inspite of being able bodied, educated and empowered.
Hope to die soon with a prayer, God pls awaken me where Crime is not judged by its Gender and Equality means not hating husband but loving his wealth and resources.
AMEN !!

Paternity fraud is …
Conceiving baby with her paramour (means the kid is actually not yours) and making you do all the cores for that baby and taunting you for any of his mistakes as if the kid is actually having your genes…
or
taking away your kid from you (legally / illegally) just to kill you internally and satisfy her sadistic ego after separation. Anyway after getting divorce and taking all your wealth , she will not take care of the kid as she feels that it reminds you and tries to beat him / kill him for all her faults.

Means that your wife was of loose character and a slut and did adultery with another man,conceived his child while keeping the husband in dark ,even when the child is born and through his childhood to adulthood, she keeps everyone in dark of her charaterlesness, her child’s paternity(the recognition of real biological father)….and the husband becomes the donkey who bears the burden of someone else’s baggage or sperm grown into an adult, till his death.

Absolutely nailed it Partha. And u are right feminists in the form of all genders who has made his movie have nailed it. In fact feminists have started hitting the nails too hard on civilized society. They want too much civility in just one gender, which is definitely the last few nails needed for who of civilization to collapse.

On my part I observed tha way trailers were presented (I don’t watch hindi movies much and least bit the trailers that too of a movie named “Pink”, which to my mind read “Sink”. I happened to see it in a theatre and sas that on youtube too) . Coming to the point, I saw a repeat of it on youtube as I for a second thought that it is made to please Men’s rights issue raisers. I am sorry, I am human too, so I erred for a second or 2 and saw comments on youtube which without veered towards claiming that the movie reflects what many men instinctively know is wrong with feminism or so called women empowerment. I refrained from commenting that it may seem so, but it may be entirely opposite.

And bang on I was, and as u have observed the non-verbal cues to liberation, I figured the marketing technique refined to retrain slipping away almost neo-feminists men into subconciously think that men are born rapists and screw away the 0.0001% probable chance at sexual satisfaction they might have with promiscuous women by asking and recording NO/YES question/answers. In any case men’s need for sex is all wrong and perverted.

Men are the animals. Yes of course we all are, but men definitely are more animals who worked hard through 100s of millenia during evolution, like draught animals at the whims of powerful men, who were at the mercy of their chosen women from harem.

But as animals do when made slave for long long time, they will break loose and all mayhem will ensue, first engulfing sperm banks that symbolic epitome of technology that makes weakest feminized men sire more children than strong animalistic men.

Absolutely incoherent! You seem to be taking pride in derailing the actual discussion & going forth about men’s physical needs. Let’s get one thing clear – BOTH men & women have physical needs. Feminism has nothing to do with empowering one gender’s needs. It’s about equality, which also by the way includes consent. RAPE & MOLESTATION are way above & beyond the whole concept of feminism. IT’s about BASIC HUMAN rights. And your comment proves exactly what’s wrong with the society. You are not able to understand the VALUE of a YES or a NO. Whether it’s a man OR a woman, NOBODY has the right enforce themselves forcefully on someone else. In such a case, you have the absolute right to defend your body.

If you think both men & women are equal , please support us in making gender neutral laws. Human rights apply to all human beings. And for your info mere verbal self statement of any body (until unless it is a statement given by that person on death bed) to punish anybody will lead to chaos in the society.

Either you are a man or woman, we sincerely request you not to sit and type such replies, request you to actively participate in abolish gender specific laws and bring gender neutral laws as in western countries (which by the way feminists refer to)

No doubt that but for obsequious people like you it’s easier for women to get hold of men freeload off them , lead them on and then act as the saintly vestal virgin in front of the world…
Accept it both a man and a woman have biological needs for sex. Also that there are NO free lunches…It depends on who approaches whom… If in case a man goes out of his way to maintain or bestow favor a woman, he has every right to ask for the return on his investment. The woman should’ve thought of that earlier before approaching him… (Same thing goes for a man) Please don’t tell me that the so called adult beer guzzling, smoking, promiscuous liberated women are naive lust-less toddlers (although they behave so and act likewise so that servile people like you can give them the benefit of doubt or Look -at- her- she’s a- woman justification) and didn’t know what was coming as she mooched off the man…
Or is it friend-zoning that’s good for you? To keep a “good, gentlemanly” guy on a platonic leash only to “be a good friend’ and make use of his services at whim during future errands…. Maybe…

I watched this movie with my friends and I need to share that I completely echo your opinions about the movie. It is highly Misandric, fictional and overboard. It’s hard to believe how people can be made to believe almost anything.

I should add that none of us (friends) liked the movie. I have already asked my other friends and circle not to waste their money on this piece of s… whatever!

No evidence was proposed against the boys I agree. But the guy in question in the end out of anger did say something which completely went against him. That also had an impact on the court’s verdict. Don’t you think?

You are right..but that was put in his mouth by the feminist gang to undermine the society in general and vilify all men. If he said, society thinks of such girls as “Randy” that does not mean he stated that the girl did say “No”. He had no reason to get angry so easily unless the director wanted him to show in bad light. Again showing him angry quickly only portrays that men in general are like that. Mind it, it was not one individual who was standing in the witness box. He represented whole of male gender and that is what movie wanted to portray as well.

There are always good people & bad ones. The individual in the witness box represented the bad ones I believe. What makes you think it’s all men?
Also, movie briefly narrates how the FIR was a backdated one. Isn’t that a good evidence?
Finally, I agree there were multiple glitches I the movie which could have been taken care of.

Actually it is not about glitches. It is about the main point highlighted. A woman’s verbal statement to be taken as more powerful than any other evidence (like evidence of assault in this case). Problem is when that happens we open floodgates of false cases. You probably had seen through Advct. Sehgal’s comments- he gave a lot of gyan to men. What if a movie gives such gyan to women? Also feminists are trying to build a case for marital rape (PIL pending in SC) where they want a woman’s verbal testimony to be considered of prime importance and decide marital rape cases. Once that happens, all divorces will have rape cases associated and the lives of those men will be completely ruined.

Please understand the underlying purpose of the movie and the main message.

“He represented whole of male gender”…what has been portrayed is a male with powers and system at his disposal!
Somehow you have missed the point…perhaps some girl from your house or closeone hasn’t been through it…but I can related to this…and yes…our has not been a happy ending…
So I would recommend you to think/put yourself in our shoes and be a little sensible rather than putting a negative side to it and sensationalize, to play yourself (here I am assuming you to be representing a whole of male gender) as the victim.

Oh..is it..The movie tries to convince us that a girl’s sole testimony should be considered more important than anything else. Do you realize that if that is the case then how many more false rape cases will be filed based on such oral evidence and how many innocents will be convicted based on such oral statement? Do you realize that now marital rape (which is in the offing) will also make many married men as rapists on divorce? What is negative dude? Implicating some innocents in future by getting carried away with emotions of the movie? remember, such public opinions thus created through movies are used to create our laws and punish many innocents. Hope you know how Dhananjay’s execution is also be found to be wrong? Do you want that to happen to our future generation?

Feminism is a word discovered by the women hunters in fact. So called women freedom give them chances to enjoy women easily. Actual freedom is spiritual and nobody, men or women, could be free materially. Everybody is slave unless one realizes his/her true identity, spitual identity, within his/her material body. So, to get the taste of original freedom one must know his/her eternal true identity which is eternal with bliss and knowledge. In this regards please join us on http://www.ultimateselfrealization.com or, http://www.backtohome.com

There was no concrete evidence on either of the sides. The guys gang fabricated the evidences and witnesses using their power in order to escape judicial punishment. But in the end when the main accused guy looses his cool and says “aisi ladkiyo ke sath aisa hi hota hai”, that was the turning point of the movie when you are forced to believe that this guy must have definitely tried to molest being the chauvinist and narrow minded person he is. I am no feminist or meninist, but just a guy who tries to have an open mind. So please write blogs without holding biases and not misleading others. Thanks. I’m glad though you voiced your perspective.

That act and comment was forcefully put in his mouth..moreover the movie tried to justify a criminal act of seriously hurting someone for an offence like molestation (let’s assume he did it). The movie creates prejudices when Amitabh gives a long monologue about how guys should behave. So in a way this movie tries to hold men responsible for everything while giving women clean chit in a crime. The movie was not done in an unbiased way. In fact, you need to remove your bias because this movie in a way tried to convince people about considering a woman’s verbal statement above everything else. Probably you did not understand that. If the guy’s statement was considered to make him guilty, Amitabh’s final argument would have included that. The statement was put in his mouth by the feminists to show mirror to the society.

I’m not a feminist, never was. The important part that most of people here are missing is that after the incident took place, Taapsee was kidnapped and molested in a car which is very clearly shown in the movie. She went to the police station to file an FIR for that. You are not a girl/ woman maybe that is why you won’t get it and what actually we face everyday. We are touched almost everyday by strangers. I do believe that not all men are responsible but most men are and this is the reason movies are made. It is the largest medium to send out a message. It might not be able to change how those men think totally but atleast an effort has been made to put across a message to the society. Take your mother or sister along with you to watch this movie. They will tell you what exactly the movie is all about.
P.S.- I respect men as much as I respect women. Saying this again..not a feminist but you actually have to become a girl someday to get what I am trying to say.

Aishwarya no one denies that women dont face issues. Humans face issues. Everyone faces issues rich or poor, male or female. Showing their issues is also fine. Now coming to your points:
Tapasee was kidnapped in the car. We know that bcz in the movie it was shown. So, we know that the guys were the culprit. Court has only her statement. We as activists have seen ‘n’ no of cases where women are cooking stories to make their case stronger and nailing innocent guys. Thus, evidence here is the key. And also as per our experience FIRs are registered for women without much resistance than FIR registered by men (in fact men dont have many laws for protection).
Now, if you talk about rich guys, whenever the opposite party is rich, then ppl suffer no doubt whether rich girl against a guy or a rich guy against a girl. I have seen many cases where rich girl’s family implicates a man in false case and then using their influence gets their bail cancelled, gets them beaten up badly by police, etc.

Basically what I want to say that men suffer as much as women or even more. And it seems your father or brother have never been affected thats why you dont understand.
The sympathy shd be there for both guys and girls. One sided sympathies are definitely not acceptable.
These type of movies are trying to show men as villains and also trying to give a message that women’s statements are gospels of truth. You would understand the implications is one of ur close male relatives is implicated in false harassment case and the woman creates a drama, sheds croco tears and they get convicted bcz of that.

I agree. Actually we have two Indias in one geographic India. One Ultra Urban which is made by people who have global exposure and they are inspired by foreign cultures. And other one is rural India which is reserved and lacks global exposure. Migration results in mixing of the two which have great differences.
Cultural diversity is a boon for political world but a curse for society. Unless you have extremely adaptive population you can’t expect a society to assimilate cultural diversity.
Few girls are liberal and they make others think why can’t they be intimate with them if they are like that. Here being open minded doesn’t mean to except a promiscuous wife but to be open in understanding and accepting the differeces.
Every society deals with some flaws. We have rape US has racial segregation, Europe has religious segregation.
The only solution to this is proper and complete education. Having a iPhone and a Porsche doesn’t guarantee and educated person.

I’m not a feminist, never was. The important part that most of people here are missing is that after the incident took place, Taapsee was kidnapped and molested in a car which is very clearly shown in the movie. She went to the police station to file an FIR for that. You are not a girl/ woman maybe that is why you won’t get it and what actually we face everyday. We are touched almost everyday by strangers. I do believe that not all men are responsible but most men are and this is the reason movies are made. It is the largest medium to send out a message. It might not be able to change how those men think totally but atleast an effort has been made to put across a message to the society. Take your mother or sister along with you to watch this movie. They will tell you what exactly the movie is all about.
P.S.- I respect men as much as I respect women. Saying this again..not a feminist but you actually have to become a girl someday to get what I am trying to say.

//// You are not a girl/ woman maybe that is why you won’t get it and what actually we face everyday. We are touched almost everyday by strangers. ////

^^ You are not a boy \ man and maybe that is why you won’t get it and what we actually face everyday. We are touched almost everyday by stranger women and despite that its those women \ girls who think us to be the “gropers” and themselves to be the “groped / molested victims” !!!

I believe not all females are responsible but most females are.

moreover, @Aishwarya Kishor ma’m„ would you please support my demand that a similar movie or film be made but only with the victim-gender’s and the culprit-gender’s respective places swapped with the story somewhat like

guy(s) consent(s) to the girl’s (girls’) invitation for drink or something. she later stealing her consent and having sex with him AGAINST HIS CONSENT (FORCED TO PENETRATE) and then at length going on to accuse him of ″rape″ while paint herself to be ″″rape victim″″ [matlab ki tell blatant lies to the public in such a way ki sachchaaii / truth jo hai uskaa bang opposite picture pahunchē common people tak]

ohh yes, needless to say, do not forget the associated punches and slaps from the girl (and, in many of the occasions, the “mob justice” and “public maar” that also occurs) either, as far as these UNOFFICIAL false〝molestations〞are concerned.

UNREPORTED fake sexual harassments.

bus driver all of a sudden applies the brakes, most passengers lose balance, a man and a woman MUTUALLY COLLIDE

and lo behold !! all hell will break lose now !!!

so many women and girl passengers even resort to “teaching the (concerned \ related) male passenger to respect women” after having foul mouthed and\or slapped him.

when males get grabbed or inappropriately touched or groped etc. by females, they seldom happen to be able to able to identify that sexual violation.

much rather, with the kind of female chauvinistic mental ingraining he has been subjected to, he might rather resort to considering HIMSELF responsible for his body having come in contact with that of a woman !!

Why are you saying let’s assume he did? Did you even watch the movie? He did do it. His friends did try to tarnish the girls reputation. Caused one to lose her job, her relationship. Abducted the other girl and again molested her in the car. All this was shown to happen. You’re the viewer, you know the facts. Still you believe that the girl should get punished for trying to protect herself?

If you want to argue about evidence, there was no evidence to prove the attempt of murder charge either, you need to establish intent, what was her motive? You need to establish that it was a premeditated action, thought through. No evidence to prove they were prostitutes. The defense even proved that the FIR was backdated and the SHO’s testimony was torn apart by Amitabh’s character as it was full of inconsistencies. I understand that it was not all perfect and an actual court might not even give this verdict. But do you expect them to show that you can falsely accuse people of prostitution after molesting them and get away with it? Have a hard look at yourself.

The movie does not intend to rate all men in same light. AB’s character, Falak’s relationship partner’s character, their landlord’s character are all portrayed different from Rajveer. It’s a piece of fiction and they’ve tried to give a 3rd person view to audience, who will witness a courtroom drama.

I assume you are objectively referring only to facts presented in court and its proceedings, so let’s try to ignore / unlearn the car incident or the snippet shown in end credits.
It’s established that a man was grievously injured, and now he and the girl are both accusing the other side. What are the facts presented in favour of man ? The police case, which is proven to be a late entry, raising questions on its validity / motive.
The facts about girls who “dress inappropriately, drink, are friendly with strangers, have boyfriends, live alone, went to a room (in a group though)” are then raised. The accusation on girls is of promiscuity. If you think those facts co-rrelate with the accusation, then I have nothing to discuss. We are on fundamentally different grounds.

I agree the facts presented in court, in favour of women are equally thin. Except for establishing the mindset of accused man, who considers that “such women” are not good, and this is what they deserve. I am not a legal expert, but perhaps this is the driving point shown for decision. Definitely not the tears.

When we have a closed room and 2 parties accuse each other, whom do you support? The one you believe in – with your own bias. For instance, I may have an experience, an observation, a first / second person account of someone close, for one gender exploiting the other, and I will form a perception. To generalise that perception is incorrect. I must break out of it.

I relied on the out of court instances (car incident and end credits), to identify the truth of this story. I agree it may very well have been the other way round, had the out of court instances shown differently – and still made a convincing story. Aitraaz was much better in this regard, with appropriate proofs in court proceedings.

As for your statement in bold –
” justify a criminal act of causing grievous injury to one person (or even murder) to someone just grabbing a woman when in reality she was openly being sexual”
JUST grabbing a woman ?? What does that mean?? She was also JUST trying to get out of grab !!
“Openly being sexual” ?? – How does that give someone a right to violate beyond her permission?? No human, has a right to offend other human. Even if she’s drunk, she’s friendly, she’s a sex worker, or even your own wife. While marital rape is not yet a legal offence in India, I believe we need to ask ourselves whether we consider it an offence worthy of legal prosecution or not.

Going to the room with stranger was wrong. Just like sharing your credit card details with a stranger would be. (Not an exact parallel, but an example). But still, if the stranger tries to transfer your money to his account, without your consent, it’s a criminal offence !!
Of course, to prove the consent is whole point of movie, and I agree it could have used better in-court facts, than just emotions.

Let me confess that you have presented good arguments. So hats off. But these are not good enough –

You did not understand either the main message the movie wanted to convey, nor you understood this article. The movie wanted to convey that a woman’s verbal statement should be given prime importance over other evidences. Now other arguments that you had presented like – is the way she is dressed should give one permission to grab her etc. does not mean any thing here.

Car incident etc does not come here. Because the case was about what happened in the room. So car incident was a different crime that is not being discussed here. Also the boys criminal precedence is sadly used here to judge them when a woman’s criminal precedence or her being a prostitute is not considered in any other cases. Do you see the difference?

You asked whether a man can grab a woman without her permission. Certainly not, that is an offence but is that a more heinous offence than attempt to murder? If you say yes, I will ask you then tell me why Rohtak Sisters or any other woman who was found to beat men openly on the streets was never punished. Rather Rohtak Sisters were given bravery awards. WHY?

Dude the movie tried to promote that a woman’s verbal statement should be considered more important than any other evidence. Which is very wrong. It is setting a precedence to bring in marital rape law when a woman will raise rape complaint against her husband based on her verbal complaint. Already we have seen what happened to dowry cases that accepts a criminal case based on her verbal statement. Now all divorces will have a rape case too. Are you ready for that?

He will defend bcoz he wrote the blog and actually his blog makes no sense. It’s like he chose to see parts of the movie and not see others and write a review and the fact that website is called malefactor indicates defend the male till the last breath even if they are wrong they grope you wrongly frame you molest you ridicule you kindly defend all these action and justify gruesome act of intend to murder. And if anyone speaks sense call him a feminist. Mr Partha justifies a common saying we see what we choose to see. Though it’s every clear the judgement was not on oral submission of the girl or lack of evidence but he will project it that ways bcoz I guess the Amitabh gyan hurt his male ego. Anyways the fact that in almost every comment to this blog he has to clarify or further debate goes to show that this makes zero sense and is just another mysogynist pysche. Otherwise one can discuss creative difference in the film or its representation. But he just passed his own set of judgements here which exactly is the only point the film makes.

And you will counter because you are a woman and need servile people to magnify your blown up ego…and maybe want to justify the promiscuity shown by the women..(perhaps too personally) which is in anyways the same notion of the film… “So what if they (women) led him on/ so what if they made sexual advances… So what if they touched you,..So what if they appeared sexually open to you… So what if they mooched alcohol off your tab and gave notions ..You being an individual need to be a stone and keep off your desires, unlike them, you can’t be attracted towards them or approach them, you can’t assume that they might not want you to take lead in your approach or a touching back as they happen to be angels , devoid of lust, who can walk on drunk into a room with random men and expect them to perhaps play cards… i.e. they can have a good time at you cost and yet break a bottle on your head if you advance…” But of course sex isn’t just a number for them…And if men (also like kmalik1610) aren’t fighting for their cause and/or justifying their actions then they are meant to be vilified and condemned..

Well said Kmalik, these are the same points that I have also raised in my comment.
It is about what one wants to see in the movie.
I’m sure it was not the perfect portrayal of a case proceeding. But. the movie was trying to make a point of confirmation bias and how we operate from our preconceived notions..of course, in reality acquittal of one does not result in the counter charge.
If the aim of the movie was to show how cases are fought then, they would have taken into account the landlords testimony, harassing calls from the guy post the incident, picture sent to andrea, the lawyers eye witness account of meenal’s abduction….and not shown us the story prior to the case.
The entire reason why we were shown the real story prior to the case was so that in the 2 hour movie they don’t have to show the entire proceedings for the counter charge.

The car incident and phone threats were relevant to the case. The guys were convicted under the IT Act for making threatening phone calls. Ofcourse they didn’t show the entire case proceeding in a two and a half hour movie, but it’s common sense. Which apparently you don’t have… Also, the real incident is shown at the end of the movie which clearly shows that it was an act of self defense.

good..so you are saying a different set of people (Rajveer’s friends) committing a crime confirms a different crime that would have happened earlier> Also how do you think the court knows about phone threats? was the recording submitted to prove that?
Try to understand the point, when a court decides on a criminal case, all these need to be proven to court. The real incident was shown to you, not to court.
If we reverse the genders of the incident, the guys would have still been convicted.

Yes, they did bring up the case of phone threats and car molestation. Right at the beginning of the case. And yes, the main accused’s friends got convicted for the threats and car molestation, not for Rajveer’s act of molestation. Since they got convicted under the IT Act, it is obvious that evidence was presented before the court. They did not detail it in a two and a half hour movie because they had more important things to focus on. Also, Rajveer was not convicted based on just Minal’s testimony on what happened in the room. There was circumstantial evidence against him – the two friends who were witness to the fight, the threats molestation that happened later, and the initial police complaint filed by the girls, and Rajveer’s outburst in court saying that the girls deserved to be molested because they were being too frank – all point in the same direction that there was some molestation that happened. He was also convicted for plotting the threat and molestation that happened in the car for which there was a witness. Are you happy now? Judges convict based on evidence, and just because it can’t be shown in that detail in a movie, the doesn’t mean that the movie’s message was about how court procedures should be conducted. That was so not the message of the movie. The movie just showed a simplified version of a court procedure to convey a larger message. There’s IPC and CrPC for convictions in real life.

“a woman’s verbal statement should be considered more important than any other evidence. Which is very wrong”
Completely agreed. In my humble opinion too, gender alone should not bias judgment. Same for tears (obviously). Especially in urban societies.

” the movie tried to promote “only” that ”
Disagree. (Though we both can agree to disagree here 🙂 ) To me it was a piece of fiction, telling story of one incident, and in my personal experience a large section of people share the mindset of guy in this case (consciously / subconsciously). The movie has its own version of truth & I also found the courtroom facts not convincing enough for judgment either ways. As I mentioned earlier, it could very well have been the other way round, and still worked as a good movie for me.

Though am genuinely curious how such matters will eventually be resolved with greater conviction. If not for trying to get truth out of one of the parties / forming a hypothesis based on facts. Have you seen Inkaar?

I had differing opinions on other points. Which seem to be clarified now.

“But I am trying to locate that fortunate guy who being a stranger to woman had met a woman first time in his room and the woman willingly went with him (unless of course she had other intentions), I am also yet to see any decent woman who would do that. The reason given by three girls was they ‘thought’ those three strangers were decent.”

Just a window into your biases, the guy who meets a one night stand is fortunate, while the woman is un-decent? As you said which decent girl gets into a room with a guy she met through a common friend….I want to ask you which decent guy (oh I’m sorry fortunate guy) invites girls he just met into a room first for drinks and then asks them to stay longer for food and then tries to initiate sex……..Despite coming from a conservative family where his own sister is not allowed to drink in addition to the fact that he is going to get married…Which decent guy does this? Character analysis karna hai toh dono genders ka karo.

The three strangers were not strangers but they all had a common friend. Have you never met friends of your friends, who you assume won’t beat you up or murder you. Attend a cocktai party of your friends …you will meet people you don’t know….and then if you end up partying in the same room with them..Are you going to assume they will kill you? No? Sure you won’t trust them with your life, but you won’t refuse to be in the same room with them….because you trust your friend to have decent friends. These girls assumed the same. They did not assume that these guys are good for marriage or to have sex with…they may have considered being friends..or maybe get to know each other….like normal adults…

The women said “No” when the guys showed an inclination to have sex. How did entering into a room or drinking and talking become equivalent to saying yes to having intercourse?? Don’t you think the men should be “asking” before initiating sex with the other person they intend to have sex with?? And when the woman says no, have the courtesy to stop!!! He doesn’t and gets hit with a bottle, then the guys proceed to harass the women for having hit him in panic…this is when the girls had already decided not to press charges…..and which eventually leads to her getting molested by the men…
Did the women file a case of rape against them? No. She got molested for having said no to having sex and then not saying sorry after the conversation where he repeatedly calls her a slag… as a means of showing her her place.

“This movie not only tries to justify a criminal act of causing grievous injury to one person (or even murder) to someone just grabbing a woman when in reality she was openly being sexual (telling sexual jokes, how many stranger women shared sexual jokes with you on first meeting?) and touching the guys in restaurant”

“Just” grabbing a woman. Don’t grab a woman. Ask a woman. There was no proof of her touching him. That was only his claim/version. The girls said they were behaving normally. A guy sees what he wants to see. He saw consent in her laughter and her jokes and drinking….He got furious when reality did not match his expectation.
Telling sexual jokes, drinking are NOT equal to saying YES TO SEX. ASK A WOMAN IF SHE WANTS TO HAVE SEX. SHE WILL SAY YES IF SHE WANTS TO.
The movie began like you described it…but what you saw is a backdated manipulated police report, a guy who was hit on the head who claimed he was attacked (after the girls went to file a molestation charge)…which was not filed in time due to his being connected . As was seen, the lawyer himself is a witness to the girl getting abducted in a car and then being left on the road.
Are you saying because a woman who laughs at a sexual joke or drinks, is liable to be raped?

What made you disregard the version of the women over the men…? Since it was only word versus word…Why did you in your post only talk of the decency, drinking, laughing at the jokes by the women???? Why did you not talk about the character of the men?? Who in fact initiated all of these things with the girls who were equally strangers for them??

Let’s come to evidences.

1) The first charge was prostitution: There was no evidence to this effect. The one girl who took money was also returning it to her ex boyfriend. There was NO PROOF of either of the three girls. On claiming that the women have attacked because of extortion of money, it is their job to prove it….There was NO PROOF of the same.

2) The reports : This charge was filed back dated after so many days by the police officer who was at a marriage function as proven by the advocate written by a different pen and in one line though the police woman claimed to have travelled the entire distance at a super speed in ten minutes claiming the importance of this issue and still failed to right the whole report in detail?? The women had gone to the police station to report being threatened….the police dissuaded them.

3) Attempt to murder : The woman was taken into custody on this charge…It was a non bailable charge hence taken into custody immediately. Being hit on the head can have two meanings one was – being attacked without provocation, second is being attacked in a case of defense. The guys claimed the first while the girls claimed the second.

I’ll tell you another thing that can be proven from this…If I use the same logic as you, the guys were prostitutes…They invited the girls to stay for food and drinks…The girls did not intitate it as was proven by their own testimony. Why were the guys have rooms in a resort when they had houses in the same city?? To solicit sex and clients??? It became evident that the men wanted to have sex with the women by their own admission….The men could have been prostitutes? And hence to extort money have filed an attempt to murder case??
How does this sound?
Sounds the same as the cooked up case in the movie. But can be proven EXACTLY the same way…

If you want to bring to light the fact that how the same laws can be used for a false rape case. I’m with you.
But in the above case, we can make out two things from the movie. That, the case was based on the character analysis of the girl and prostitution was trying to be proved on that basis..What about the guys ? Their behavior was more in sync with prostitution in my opinion. Which decent guy will invite strangers to his room and then urge them to drink and eat with them? A guy who wants to have sex….or is a prostitute?

Trusting someone stupidly is not a crime, but forcing yourself on someone is…therefore it is not a question of on what joke she laughed or was drinking…or what clothes she was wearing…it is a question of her not wanting to have sex when he initiated it.
If the charge of prostitution was made, they had to prove it. They were unable to.
Attempted murder charge was made back dated as proven.

This proves that when things unfold not all evidences support the true story. This movie was a reflection of that. The same will apply to decent guys. This proves that our definition of decency is wrong. The guys were not decent…the girls were. They were decent enough to think that the guys were decent!!!! They were decent enough to not have sex with guys they just met…they were decent enough to not file charges when harassed and before that….

When a Sec 498a case is filed which is false against the guy, it is very hard to prove that the guy is innocent only because he did not expect a fake dowry case against him and hence never thought from the point of view of evidences….when a girl is attacked/molested/raped she also has the same issues. She does not expect to be raped or assaulted. This is a problem of the legal system ( and your post) that you are judging the women based on what they drank, wore, and laughed on…..and similarly a guy in a fake 498a case gets judged on being a guy.

Thanks for your detailed comment. I will take time and turns to reply as I am really pressed for time but here is my first attempt

One night stand – where is the question of one night stand coming here? Is going to one’s room means he / she wants to have one night stand? This article never said we need presume consent and the guy can do anything he wants. In fact that is an offense. But the question is how grave is that offense that it needs to be considered as more grave than “Attempt to Murder”? If you say it is, then I would remind you of Rohtak sisters. Why they were given bravery award instead of punishment?

Your arguments on “No Means No” – Where did the article say this need not be respected? But whether she had said the same was established based on only her statement. And the judgement was made based on other criminal activities of the guys (car incident). This movie goes beyond the particular case (as you may understand), it did mention about marital rape (sensitizing husbands, boy friends etc – Amitabh’s comment). The intention here was to build a case for Marital rape for which feminist PIL is pending in court. You know what will happen once this is considered as prime evidence? all divorces will have a rape case and the men will lose their lives completely. You probably have not thought about this as you are not aware of the bacjground information.

Grabbing a woman – Who said it is not a crime? But the question is of what magnitude? Should it be considered as more grave than attempt to murder? If you say yes, tell me why Rohtak Sisters are still not punished?

Attempt to murder – The movie exaggerated facts here. A woman being sent to jail while trying to save her from molestation? It may so happen when the guys are powerful and they misuse power. In India anything can happen by misusing power, but if you had little knowledge of Indian laws and crime, you would have known that legally women are permitted to even commit murder on this pretext and get away with nothing. Let’s not discuss the movie made issues because that is not the norm when only normal people are involved. When politicians and connected people are involved laws change..everywhere. Even for women.

Car incident – It is a separate incident and needs to be treated as a separate crime. Do you know, a woman’s crime history does not interfere in proceeding of a different case.

Charge of prostitution – In fact I think the guys could have been charged too for buying services (if any) if they were so moral they shouldn’t have gone for it.

Police report – definitely fudged. I am not sure why we are discssuing this as the article never mentioned this was the problem.

Also your arguments about joke, dress etc. all are not the problem mentioned in the article.

The main problem is this movie solicit to take a girl’s verbal statement before the judge as supreme. When the evidence of her hitting the guy and causing grave injury was established. Once a girl’s sole testimony is considered to decide a crime it causes hell lot of other issues, fake cases and wrongful convictions. That is the issue described here.

Not sure why you had to write such a lengthy comment when none of these were mentioned as the issue anyway.

I wrote a lengthy comment because I did not want to make half hearted points. And I wanted you to understand what I was saying.
I agree on one thing and have been against it for a while now, that these laws can be misused easily. The fact that adultery is recognised only of a man, that man on man rape is not recognised, that dowry laws on the one hand have helped real victims but become a joke for criminal minded women. I second these.

Let’s clarify somethings,
1- The case proceedings portrayed in the movie are not how real events take place
2- When proceedings for one charge are taking place, on accused getting acquitted there is no automatic counter charge in lieu. Separate procedures are to be undertaken for that.
3- Without evidences neither the story of the woman nor of the man are taken into account.
4- The only reason people believed in the movie and lauded it is because they were already shown the truth before the proceedings started.

Now to your points,
1- Marital rape. This movie is not a build up for that I’m sure. The biggest hurdle in marital rape is proving it. It will be VERY difficult for a woman to prove marital rape. For rape you have to show lack of consent and resistance. Within domestic boundaries…it is difficult to prove. Lots of women go through it, and lots may misuse it…Setting the parameters is difficult in our society. Without proper conditions and restrictions it will become a draconian law.
I don’t know what you mean by feminists. There are so many people in the world who say they are feminists…all have their own definitions. I can see you have strong opinions about things and are connecting things to what you have gone through in your personal life. I’m not going to comment on that…..as to each his own. I can only give my opinion and say that I think the connection between the movie and the PIL is far fetched and non existent.

2- Grabbing a woman Vs attempt to murder- If I get grabbed by a man, and he refuses to let me go despite repeated rejections and refusals..I will FREAK the fuck out honestly. Especially if I am alone, in his room, and was not expecting it at all. What I do next is not attempt to murder but self defence since the first offence has been committed by the man and he shows no intention of backing down. I’ll worry for my life and safety and not his. I will hit him and try to escape. If I come back and beat the shit out of him even after now being safe, that would be battery and assault in an attempt to murder.
She reacted perfectly normally in duress and under sexual attack.
It’s not about what you as a man find life threatening…for a woman getting grabbed sends alarm bells in her head because once the guy is in an overpowering position..it will be very difficult to escape for her.

Rohtak sisters, do not represent what I’m saying. They are fake and have come out to be false. I do not support such people. I don’t see the connection between what I’m advocating and what they did.

3- Could you please tell me which law permits free murder pass to women as you have stated? I have not come across any such laws. Kindly give some section numbers as I would like to read on them.
If you are referring to self defence as murder, then allow me to explain that is not special for women, but men too. If you get attacked by another person and your only option is to beat him/her..in the process the person who attempted to murder you dies…would you like to be sent to jail for only defending yourself?? This is the same here.

4- “But the question is how grave is that offense that it needs to be considered as more grave than “Attempt to Murder””
Do not attempt to attack a woman ( which you called as just grabbing) and there will be no attack in retaliation. If a woman protects herself, it is not attempt to murder…
If you say grabbing is not more serious than getting killed, I would like to point out that Rajveer singh was not dying and nor was the wound fatal.

5-
“The main problem is this movie solicit to take a girl’s verbal statement before the judge as supreme. When the evidence of her hitting the guy and causing grave injury was established. Once a girl’s sole testimony is considered to decide a crime it causes hell lot of other issues, fake cases and wrongful convictions. That is the issue described here.”

I agree here, this will be a problem if spoken word becomes verdict like the boys claim that there was attempt to murder brought her into jail on a non bailable charge.
We have to remember the reality is very different in rape cases, women are witnesses in their own cases and only evidences are taken to be as proof of rape…medical kit etc. There is no standardisation of medical check ups.
That’s how fake rape cases are found out ! Because of proper evidences or lack of it.
The problem would have been if during the proceedings only testimonies became evidences….But that is not so in reality. This was only a movie.! And the only reason people supported it was because they knew the girls were innocent from the beginning.

6- “Also your arguments about joke, dress etc. all are not the problem mentioned in the article.”

You did mention it,
” This movie not only tries to justify a criminal act of causing grievous injury to one person (or even murder) to someone just grabbing a woman when in reality she was openly being sexual (telling sexual jokes, how many stranger women shared sexual jokes with you on first meeting?) and touching the guys in restaurant.”

The main thing that I wanted you to see is your bias in branding women as decent/ indecent for portraying behaviour you don’t find proper…but no question on the men for the EXACT same behaviour?? The above statement from you is very problematic honestly. This is the crux of the bias behind branding someone decent/ indecent. You forget a very basic fact that, the men initiated each of the acts above that you went on to condemn the women for.

Another thing is, you should be knowing that all physical attacks do not come under attempt to murder. Some are just physical assaults, battery etc. Just like sexual assault can be charged under rape, molestation, outraging the modesty of a woman etc.

One should not forget that movie was a dramatised narration with a point to make…it was not how actual law takes course.

Another thing that I think most failed to notice is…the video actually supported what Andrea narrated and not what the guy said. He stated that she started getting physical with him whereas andrea is the one who mentioned that the lights were shut when she moved out of the bathroom…and the video showed exactly that. He was obviously lying.
Other than that, there was no proof of soliciting or threatening for money …If anything the girls can easily prove being harassed by showing the picture that was sent to andrea on her phone in the cafe, the number of calls they got from the guys phones…and not the other way round…the lawyers testimony and eye witness account…his call to police helpline..the girls account of the molestation….the threats to the landlord. A case can be made easily and evidences were there of being harassed and threatened. The movie did not show it since it’s a movie!

//// This is a problem of the legal system ( and your post) that you are judging the women based on what they drank, wore, and laughed on…..and similarly a guy in a fake 498a case gets judged on being a guy. ////

^^ do guys get judged ONLY bcoz of their gender (being male) ??

If you come across two separate alleged “rape” cases,

one, in which, the accused man was fully clothed (say in formal clothes)

two, in which, the accused guy was wearing casual and exposing dress (like say a sleeveless vest or boxer or something)

in which of these two incidents would the rape accused be assumed to be “indeed guilty” FASTER / QUICKER ??

wouldn’t the second accused get presumed to be “really guilty” quicker than the first man would get presumed to be?

the first man would also be assumed to be “rapist” BECAUSE OF HIS GENDER

whereas, the second guy would be presumed to be “truly a rapist” on the basis of both his gender AS WELL AS WHAT HE WAS WEARING

coz, the female-chauvinistic society be like, “What on earth was this Guy doing, WEARING SUCH CLOTHES, in a place where this rape complainant Girl also was present? He must surely have raped her ; she must be telling the truth. What was his purpose for going out of the house clad in such revealing dress? It has to be that he wore such dress with the sole purpose of sexually preying upon innocent Women・・・・・・・・” !!!!

when males get grabbed or inappropriately touched or groped etc. by females, they seldom happen to be able to able to identify that sexual violation.

much rather, with the kind of female chauvinistic mental ingraining he has been subjected to, he might rather resort to considering HIMSELF responsible for his body having come in contact with that of a woman !!

Don’t boys also get judged by clothes and dresses? Ask a boy to wander wearing sleeveless dress which will also bare his thighs and reveal his shoulders etc. and then just check out what Women and Girls think about him.

Don’t guys also get judged on him mingling with girls? Don’t a large section of the society opine him to be ttharkii and lampatt and sex seeking lousy lecher and perv and hawas kaa pujaarii all that, because of his proximity to some female friends ??

क्या a false rape accusation घटना में the accused or ALLEGED culprit (innocent but accused) would NOT get judged (and presumed to be REALLY INDEED GUILTY of the crime alleged against him) on the stupid logic, ❛❛What purpose did he have in entering a closed room with this accuser Lady? NO DECENT GUY \ MAN CAN DO SUCH WITH A WOMAN. Then, it has to be that he truly and certainly did indeed rape her ; she must be telling the truth・・・・・・・❜❜ ？？？？

Don’t boys also get judged by clothes and dresses? Ask a boy to wander wearing sleeveless dress which will also bare his thighs and reveal his shoulders etc. and then just check out what Women and Girls think about him.

Don’t guys also get judged on him mingling with girls? Don’t a large section of the society opine him to be ttharkii and lampatt and sex seeking lousy lecher and perv and hawas kaa pujaarii all that, because of his proximity to some female friends ??

The basic premise of d film is not understood n u r screaming feminism… I think u r dat hypocrit individual who wants to let others know as publicity n attention seeking..
Just 2 points – go n recheck there r scenes where u can see there r scenes where Minal is not showing her collar bone.. But might b ur sick eyes r penetatring her dress 2 see dat.. Want a cue – d scene where AB asks Minal if she is a virgin… Check dat properly… Many more 2…

I must confess – Oh You have great eyes.So you have actually counted the scenes where her tatto was not visible? Really dude? Shows who has sick eyes. Oh I won’t blame you for that. It was strategic by the film’s creative team..not your fault.

Looks like you are not attention seeker either as you have posted your comment Anonymously. Only thing is that if you are supporting feminism you don’t need to hide your identity. Or is there something else that prohibited you from revealing your identity?

Regarding point 2 – so you pay for all stranger’s bill you meet. or is it selective only to women? Friends I understand, but stranger women too..really? Actually the point in this article was the movie seeks that a woman’s sole testimony should be considered as more important than other evidences to decide criminal cases like rape and molestation. Once that happens not only a lot of innocent men will be accused but will be convicted by unscrupulous women. All the points you discussed actually does not matter. even the article does not consider those as issues. Did you read it properly?

Final comment on racist….oh is this the reason you have hidden your identity? btw..if you didn’t know I am a Bengali too..

In a time when the nation is reeling from the impact of false cases, when arrests are made on mere complaints or telephone calls of women without a shred of proof, life and career of such men have been destroyed, a booming blackmail and extortion racket based on false cases is raking money, this PINK movie seems part of the feminist strategy to jail and destroy men at womens whim after getting the right to arrest, torture, destroy men at mere whim with false cases. After browbeating politicians, now its the judiciary in their crosshairs. This old man Amitabh Bachaan has gone batty, now keeps occupied with the length of women’s skirts and being social rebels. Seen lot of good advice from senior citizens about handling life and crises I but never one below the belt like this.

You, dear male chauvinist, are a piece of shit. And if you think “just grabbing a woman’ is not a crime that, let me break it down to you that you very well are of a rapist mentality and belong to the rape culture prevalent in our country.
It’s because of people like you that this film is important.

Your comment shows who is a piece of shit. You don’t understand what is said here and want to use expletives. The article says in comparison which is a more dangerous crime? If you say grabbing a woman, then you need to tell me why Rohtak Sisters are not yet punished? Why they were given bravery award instead? Do you have any answer? The reason these movies are made are morons like you exist..please read properly before you rant your frustration..

Coming back to all your points… Nothing was proved against the guys…Correct! But similarly Nothing was proved against that girls also. there was no evidence showing meenal hit the guy except for the boys shouting it and meenal actually admitting that she hit him for self defense.
Next, please do not igmore the background of the guy where he come from. They actually abducted meenal and molested her in the van (coming from the very dedicated boyfriend) just because she would not apologize.
Also, why are you judging the girls if they shared a non veg joke. the accused shared it first. I guess you missed that one or that was not highlighted by the manager and that waiter.
this movie is not trying to portray anything against the men. After all we are all part of the same society but who, why and what makes us judge a girl when she parties late night, drinks or etc.

let’s top it up with few more ideal situations. Pick any other country. US, UK Australia and etc etc etc, and compare the situation then.

I am not saying that this crime is justified but we have to begin to understand that nothing should mislead a man to rape a woman. When she resisted in the beginning, he didn’t stop. Hitting a person is a crime….attempt to rape is not!

Please do not mislead the audience of you post by highlighting what was not shown in movie. Try to see beyond it.
We have to understand that MEN CANNOT/SHOULD NOT RAPE!

I guess for your first point the fact the Minal Aurora won the case itself cancels your argument..no evidence..She won…

His point is why the boys punished without substantial evidence…mnd im still not finding someone wise to fir heaven sake… ANSWER that question…PUHLEEZ..

WHY WAS IT NOT SHOWN…

Im not supporting partha…but cohmon… Take his viewpoint as an Audience…nd try n think….How cn th accused be punished….with a mere NO MEANS NO . comment…..THER MUST HAV BEEN..atleast say a frnd admitting kindda… BUT we know to make the NO MEANS NO lin more effective and emphasizing the Shoojit Srcar has don dis…we r not Kids….we kno dat…

//// After all we are all part of the same society but who, why and what makes us judge a girl when she parties late night, drinks or etc. ////

and

//// We have to understand that MEN CANNOT/SHOULD NOT RAPE! ////

this is why i have a problem with people (women) like you !! You are wrongly informed that its only girls who will get judged (as a “slut” or “whore” or “sex worker” etc.) for late night partying and drinks etc.. Probably you are obviously to the fact that boys would be judged as “sex customers \ buyers” and “lechers” and “louts” and “ttharkiis” and “pervs” and “hawas ke pujaariis” and “sex seeking \ crazy imbeciles” and “lampatts” etc. on doing the same. Any sane rational person should protest against BOTH these two kinds of shamings \ judgings.

Now, as for the other sentence of yours. Why such a generalization, that too based on a film with a fictional story?
How would you feel, if i myself create a filmy script where the plot will be ::::::::
three women FORCED three males TO PENETRATE (i sincerely hope ki you at least are not like those chauvinists who do NOT consider FORCED TO PENETRATE to be rape i.e. female upon male rape) and then later falsely alleged rape upon those three male victims itself {in order to keep their own selves safe from punishment or\and badnaam}
and now, i use that filmy story to utter the slogan ➔➔➔ “We have to understand that WOMEN CANNOT / SHOULDNOT RAPE AND THEN FALSELY ACCUSE OF RAPE THE RAPE VICTIMS ITSELF・・・・・・・・” ? ? ? ?
wouldn’t you feel something like, “why is this guy blaming us ALL women? i support him in what he is saying, but coulnd’t he have had kept his comment / slogan specifically restricted to SUCH or THOSE females who perpetrate so or have the propensity to commit such a crime?” ? ? ?

The fact that you yourself used words like decent girl, which decent girl goes out with strangers says it all. Their is no such thing called decent boys. The movie only emphasises that there are set of rules with implied assumptions only existing for women by certain feudal mindsets. And women need to stand up against these without fear. Who and why and how with what evidence was one convicted is not the purpose of the movie I feel. Its just a depiction of events with fiction and your review actually strengthens the whole point the movie tries to make. And the movie is completely harmless from any angle. I have myself been a victim of harassment at work and though I always considered myself kick ass, it took me months to speak or bring up this issue alone thinking what people my bosses my husband would think and since I have no proof it was even more daunting to be the talk of the office. Things are easier to say Mr Pratha and probably 6 months back if you wrote this I would be nodding my head in agreement but having gone through it myself I now exactly know what it feels like and why it was so close to reality. The only difference is in the end to their and my story. They got justice and I was looked upon with doubt and suspicion but I am happy that me speaking may have saved other girls from the pervert.

I can understand your Apathy….But since thr blogger is also a viewer as you yourself are…he too is watching a story unfold on screen and even his opinion must be addressed without being personal….in this case you yourself are becoming so …. Without taking that in consideration and if we all stick to the plotline of th movie and this EVIDENCE AGAINST ANGAD BEDI stuff….then this debate seems sane….

Exactly. And that’s why in my very first comment I had mentioned that the writer had put in his personal opinion of which decent woman goes out with strangers and a couple of other statements. But then people started calling me a sexist , assumed I believe there is no crime ever against men etc etc. I later reliased the website’s name and other posts by them which necessary did not bring out issues on equal justice for either gender but rather highlight only how men suffer silently. I have hence understood that there is no point to elaborate or debate with a set of people who believe in one’s suffering and not in the other gender. In such a situation I feel one can never be happy you will always find how ur suffering is more or ignored compared to others rather than actually seeing the point in case. Both suffer both can be criminals both are judged both could be innocent both should have equal rights and laws applicable. I realised I was debating with one dimensional people hence stopped responding. Your’s make sense to me hence the reply. Anyways this was by chance that I read I am not a follower of this site. And realised how our country is not united in terms of men , women trying to demean each other, forget about people fighting over religion and other causes that we see in the media. It’s sad but true a nation can’t really progress with such mentalities coexisting. Hard truth.

Don’t boys also get judged by clothes and dresses? Ask a boy to wander wearing sleeveless dress which will also bare his thighs and reveal his shoulders etc. and then just check out what Women and Girls think about him.

Don’t guys also get judged on him mingling with girls? Don’t a large section of the society opine him to be ttharkii and lampatt and sex seeking lousy lecher and perv and hawas kaa pujaarii all that, because of his proximity to some female friends ??

Yaha you are right society is both judgemental to women and men but the movie’s plot was about feudal men presuming women who dress , drink or party in a certain way. And being proved in court by witnesses that they are on the wrong side for choosing to do all this. Neighbours saying they come late etc all circumstancial evidence which is not right. If the plot was set around boys I am sure the discrimination they go through would be shown too. It’s just that the plot revolves around women here in another movie it could be around men. And more so because ours is a male dominated society let’s all agree to basic facts till today families desire having a male child , girl child is denied basics such as education then dowry etc the corporate has only 7% women population. There is no doubt that men are judged and indiscriminated or sometimes may suffer on account of women trying to taking advantage of laws in their favour but I still feel that it’s primarily a male dominated society.

//// The movie only emphasises that there are set of rules with implied assumptions only existing for women by certain feudal mindsets. ////

^^ That is exactly why this movie happens to be a sexist one.

What do you think, there aren’t a large section \ number of people who opine \ judge Guys to be “indecent” and “lousy” (and even “rapey” or “potential rapist” or “potential faayedaa utthaane waalaa” etc.) for having female friends or for going out with strangers BELONGING TO OPPOSITE GENDER ??

Set of rules ONLY FOR WOMEN ?? This is because set of rules for Males are being overlooked (or worse, deliberately ignored or intentionally swept under the carpet) by you (just what the movie itself did too).

No it still on proves sanatorium. Even from the guts side except for finger prints there was no evidence. The lawyer was building circumstancial evidence hence Amitabh defence to every circumstancial evidence that it’s presumable that one action leads obviously to the other is absolutely right. Wearing short skirts leads to an automatic invitation etc is spot on and just like the boys case is not proved girls case isn’t proved other but it leads to the guy admitting that he feels what he did was right and justifies. And not at all have I been personal , I am quoting the blog begins with defining us with an adjective or precisely self definition of a decent girl which is rather offensive to me as a girl. Thanks for the early but I have come out strong of the incident Enam, it’s a painful reality but it has really also made me realise how I am lucky to have a family or grown up amongst men who never let me feel any difference ever be it my father my brother or my husband. I may not have been able to bring that guy to justice but my my family’s belief in me made me stronger every day and I will ensure using a bottle if it ever happens again 😈. Sone of the comments below are outrightly disgusting on the post. Pretty sad and in really bad taste.

Madam, are you sati savitri ? Women today talk vulgar, sexually provocate men and then say no. Stop spreading your legs unnecessarily, or just confess I want ten men at once, one is not enough. We are okay with it, the child born would be not.

Mr Kashyap who are you to question me or my morales or pass your judgement on us in the most derogatory way. The language you have used well proves my point in black and white. A healthy logical discussion is going on where you jump and stoop to that level. All I can say is I pity your mother your sister and every woman who was unfortunate to ever be in your contact. You can call me names and take out your life’s frustration but it does not matter to me. People like you are better left to god and I can’t go down to your level to prove a silly MCP like you. All I can say is Get well soon.

I am sorry, i didn’t write this up. I live in an apartment flat shared by several men and had left this account logged in and one of them went on a comment puking spree, i am not able to delete it either.

Welll…I atleast for thr sake of matter agree with the fact that No Proper Evidence was used to prove the Males Accused were wrong… That’s a great observation to be Made.. with due respect to No MeansNo….But yes what if tomorrow a girl sexually seduces A man….Like say a Aitraz movie case….And what if tomorrow she weeps and claims i said no no no…nd NO MEANS NO… which s a Lie….so wow…all clap…and no evidence.. nothing to search….just dance and Punish the poor Guy who was sexually seduced by th gal…. Great….Thats dreadful….This NO MEANS NO will b used s a tool by those kinda women also…. That’s surely th point to reckon for us Men…..

There must have been some evidence shown of him assaulting the woman….say for example a witness watching this happening…or any friend finally admitting… in fact nobody not a single friend accepting this is at all shown…So yeah…thays d point ….with due respect to NO MEANS NO….yeah for sure that s understood.nd i Respect that……But my problem is what if tomorrow some woman who Rather sexually seduce s men…And say may be paid by anyone to just malign men…. Tomorrow she accuses and just weeps….That i said No no no…Nd no means.no….And tries to disrepute or malign the man..n stand-in… people just accept her NO MEANS NO.. STATEMENT..and Do not go for any single factual evidence or testimonials…then that’s also…wrong…..So yeah this point f not showing some real evidence or testimony against the Men….Is a bit bothering….for sure

See guys its just its just a simple point women can be Adulterous,promiscuous,wear skimpy provocatve body language,gestures,roam around strangers,get drunk,stay with strangers at night – no one should not question that – If society questions that it is patriarchy,misogyny
because its their choice and freedom.

If Men questions the inappropriate behaviour of bitches it is mans planning.

After all sexual provocation,sexual vulgar talks if a Man is pushed to make the first move and the bitch say NO – it means NO and the Man should stay away from the promiscus bitch.

Basically no responsibility for the bitches and all responsibility for MEN.
Else face Molestation,Rape,Sexual Harassment,Out Raging Modesty.

Just reverse the role none is applicable for women and they go scot free for raping a Man,provoking by gestures,verbal. —- Note this is not applicable for women – for MEN it is sexual harassment,eve teasing.

Holding hand of woman by a Man is sexual harassment but reverse is freedom.

Bullshit and no one should question or behave women to behave properly,dress decently,travel safely.

First of all I respect you presented your view on the matter but dont take it that seriously . The movie didn’t want to give any message of freeing anyone, it only showed an incident that happened and the how it affected everyone involved that’s all. It showed how when girl becomes friendly, drinks, smoke even cracks non veg jokes it doesn’t mean you have got a signal and you can have sex with her. When she says NO she means NO that’s it it doesn’t mean its feminist view or she is asking for freedom its common human nature. Also she didn’t attacked him with an attempt to murder or kill him she was drunk bottle was nearby it was just an instantaneous reaction Deepak Saigal clearly mentions that and even Meher Arora during the scene in court ask sorry and says she didn’t want to kill him. The court scene were presented in emotional view because it is a MOVIE even if in a court IMAGINE any one you know being asked ARE YOU A VIRGIN ???? It may seem easy but it isn’t for a women to answer that , even if we deny it and say anything women are still looked down upon for the v-factor. Also MOVIE is just showing it should be her consent dont try to force yourself and that is our responsibility as a guy. Even there is a scene where the Rajveer friend says “AUKKAD DIKHANI PADEGI USKO” and later the way Rajveer was shown he was not forced to say as much as Pallak Ali. As A GUY I clearly get the message it is clean and honest A NO MEANS NO, HER CONSENT IS THAT WHAT MATTERS. We dont have to relate everything against ourselves and even if we deny it we still have a lot of freedom compared to girls IMAGINE if three guys are living in flat and they will have female visitors society will look down on girl not on boys and no body will think boys character is less . Even the court scene was short because its a MOVIE and they didn’t want to extend it. For Rohtak sister case everybody knows the truth and that is what matters and remember if we have fake cases, rape is still more than that even all of rapist are not caught.
PS:I AM NOT FEMINIST, I AM JUST A BROTHER AND I FEEL EVERY BOY SHOULD WATCH IT WITHOUT TAKING IT ON EGO

Your article proves exactly what is wrong with the society. Firstly your choice of words! Although you say you don’t support crime against women, you feel that feminists ‘promote’ rape to be the most heinous crime. You clearly don’t think rape is a crime of that ‘magnitude’ that would justify attempt to murder. Do you realise how ignorant this sounds & the way you’ve trivialized such a crime in your article .. this mentality is perhaps even more dangerous than anything else!

So according to you, the movie, PINK, has victimized the woman (women tears deadly weapon etc) & thus gained sympathy. You wouldn’t have had a problem with the film if the guys were clichéd, stereotypical rowdies eyeing girls on the road and then tried to rape them, the girls perhaps ran away or one of them got raped but the girls didn’t resort to any violence – I’m guessing you wouldn’t have had a problem with this because that would be a clear cut black & white situation.

But when it comes to real life, not everything is always black & white. Not all men that appear to be rowdies are rapists & not all girls who go with strangers are characterless. Enforcing ethics about modesty or dignity is like treating the symptom not the disease. Also let me tell you, being ‘decent’ or so called ‘ethical’ does NOT guarantee safety. As women, most of us are well aware of the risks of being raped. We know certain areas, things, time and places are not safe. Most of us do put in an effort into being safe and not being stupid.

Coming to the movie, the three girls had a lack of judgment on their part for sure but does that give anyone the right to character assassinate them by deciding your own parameters of decency? Who are you to judge & stereotype?

Actually, you might have a problem with the movie because it HAS in fact NOT victimized the woman. It has shown the woman to fight back the assault & defend herself. You have a problem because the girl, Meenal, a free spirited tattoo loving girl, who nearly bashed a guy’s eye when he was misbehaving with her. You have a problem that if a man can get punished for rape, why can’t a woman get punished for causing injury to the man? Right?

Look, NOTHING justifies someone forcing themselves on you. I repeat – NOTHING. By law, if someone is threatening to infringe your bodily rights, you have the absolute right to defend your body (IPC Section 97) by using force, up to and including lethal force (IPC Section 100). Under IPC Section 96, using lethal force or grievously injuring your assailant is not an offense and therefore, NOT a criminal act. So, the movie isn’t justifying a criminal act.

In terms of evidence, from the very start – the boys’ side was obviously cooking up a whole lot of shit. If the court had asked them whether the girl said yes or no, you think they wouldn’t have lied? YES or NO – it happened in the bedroom where there was no CCTV camera. The boys side kept lying saying these girls threw themselves on us. It was only towards the end when Rajveer blurted out what his actual perceptions are about women and how some women should be treated in what way & proved his sentiments.

And as for the other footages, what do they prove? The girls were going inside/outside the boys’ rooms? What does that prove? What did the other witnesses say – “oh they were sharing sexual jokes, they had boys over at their house”.

The point of the movie was CONSENT & it doesn’t matter what the person is wearing, talking, having one girlfriend or ten boyfriends or if he/ she’s a sex worker. The point it NONE of those are relevant. CONSENT is a big deal and people underestimate the value of it. If not anything, it is your legal right to be able to protect yourself and your body.

And I don’t know why some think that under certain conditions rape/molestation is justified. Your article shows what a double standard culture and a phony morality we still have!

Also for those saying that – ‘The movie showed that a girl’s sole testimony is more important than anything else’ …. That is not true.

Deepak Sehgal proved very finely that the other party’s evidences were all irrelevant – CCTV footage, other witnesses. He also proved that the girl had lodged a FIR of her abduction & molestation before the boys filed a charge against her, which indicated that the boy was powerful & capable of strong manipulation of facts. He busted the police for filing a false report. Why would Meenal go to the police to file a case if she had actually deliberately attempted murder? Why would she be at her home & not absconding? And her two friends were her witnesses! They testified what happened that night. So, it wasn’t just ONE girl claiming innocence, there were two other girls who supported her claims. The final straw in the hat was when Rajveer blabbered himself how these women deserved to be treated the way they were because of his own understanding of how women should be. That sealed the deal, pretty much.

A court will not convict based solely on just one person’s testimony. Just like how nasty some men can be, I’m sure there will be vindictive & disturbed women who might put a false rape charge. A false accusation of rape can certainly be damaging but what is the solution to this? You can try & screen the people you interact with for unstable, vindictive behavior & avoid them.. Don’t be alone with them… but there is no way to guarantee this. Similarly, women cannot guarantee that the guy they think is trustworthy is not actually a rapist. Interacting with other human beings involves risk.

Also let’s not forget what the point of the movie was – In India a rape trial will always attack a women’s dignity, she’ll be blamed from leading the man on, wearing provocative clothes, asking for sex, being immoral, being a whore or slut, sleeping with other men, too intoxicated, etc. The movie was trying to movie that these DO NOT MATTER, when someone says no, it means no.

The chances that a woman who you’ve known for a long time, and whom you can reasonably trust, is very unlikely to accuse you of anything you didn’t do. And to be very honest, the risk for a woman to be raped is by several orders of magnitude higher than for a man to be wrongfully charged.

It’s funny how from this entire comment, you pulled out one line and commented on that as per your convenience.

76% ? Please quote your source if we are talking statistics.

Also, please add the exact number of rape cases in India – do you how many rape cases go unreported here? Do you know how many women are pressured to take back reports because they are threatened if they don’t, they will have acids thrown to their face or their siblings/ families will be kidnapped? If we are talking about false rape cases, I pray you do a clear analysis of ALL those false cases and then talk.

Please wake up and smell the coffee! OUR country is in a sad state where women are fighting for basic human dignity.

And yes, articles like these are the reason why movies like PINK need to be made again and again. Because people like you missed the point or derailed it.

The film was NOT a lawyer’s guide on ‘how to tackle a rape/molestation case in the best way’. The film didn’t claim to show about ‘how a judge should make a judgment on a rape case in the best way’. Watch the movie again -the false witnesses were nullified by Deepak s arguments. The video shown didn’t prove anything, it was just a false rubbish commentary by prosecutor who wanted to twist things. The clincher of this case was when Rajvir said the word Raand and said such kind of girls deserved to be treated that way.

Judges are not fools, they get it when the witnesses or any other person is lying. The judge got the message crystal clear.

Well buddy, this is an established figure. Find it out by yourself, just google it. I am not misquoting or even exaggerating. This is a time tested statistic. Though I dont have the exact link to provide you the statistics. but that figure has been accepted by even the feminists.

Well, I would still claim that that 76% of all unreported cases would also be false cases. What makes you think all unreported cases are genuine cases. The percentage of false cases even among unreported cases would still be same as the percentage among reported cases.

This movie is horrible, firstly those three women are prostitutes and one of them even admits to having agreed to a price and backing out due to a change of mind. Throughout this movie the 3 girls keep lying abt the prostitution and claiming to be “normal working girls”, the northeastern girl is clearly shown running into a room with the guy, closing the door herself and switching off the light in one second and when questioned she said the flush of the toilet in the other room was not working so she rushed to a seperate room with the fat guy, the way they are both running to the room in cctv footage does not seem like she is in a rush to go to the toilet, that too with a guy. All three go to seperate rooms and make excuses for doing so.

No means no – agreed however what have they shown women in this movie to be?? They showed that normal working class girls living alone in india are part time call girls and for extra cash they will do anything? They’ve shown that indian women are sick liars from top to bottom and manipulative to the core? They’ve shown that women in india are openly abusing the laws created to protect their rights and liberties?? They’ve shown that its totally justified for women to twist men around, take them for a ride, USE those men and then move on to the next party?? And the whole time its the men who are the bad guys not these horrible women??

How can anyone sit and justify this awful movie where a prostitute can basically fix her rate then back out, fine even that is fine but what the hell is she herself first??? A big manipulative liar???

Xyz I can’t stop laughing at your IQ level. The girl admits to take money to proof a point to the judge not actually bcoz she did take money. Please go back listen to what she said yes I have taken money yes I gave but what difference does it make if I still say no post that does it give them the right to take the money back or force themselves on me. Each one of us have right to breach the contract and pay a penalty you can’t force the other person into slavery or rape or any action you deem correct to recover your dues. Part time call girls ? which movie did u watch I seriously doubt 😂

Well Partha, You explained it in thousand words and still some people did not seem to understand. Allow me to explain in just one sentence and see if those people understand. And here it is:

“NO means NO, that’s alright. But did she really say NO and is there any evidence for that ?”

And secondly for people saying the outburst of the guy towards the end and also the kidnapping incident (somewhere, I did not see movie) corroborate towards the evidence that she might have actually said NO.

Well, allow me make you understand something here. This is the part where the director tricks you into believing like that. If the kidnapping incident and the guy’s outburst were to be used to decide if the girl really said NO then imagine the following situation in the movie.

Imagine if Amitabh has finally said something like this in the movie :

“Your honor, since there was a kidnap incident and also since the accused have shown an outburst during the proceedings by saying so and so, so it may be legally concluded that the girl has indeed said NO”

Now just consider how legally valid that argument would have been. In fact this above argument should have never been part of the discussion here (it was not there in the movie in the first place).

This is a movie. There are going to be loopholes in every film… if we start picking it apart, there will be no end to this discussion. BUT PINK was NOT a lawyer’s guide on ‘how to tackle a rape/molestation case’. The film wasn’t about ‘how a judge should make a judgment on a rape case in the best way’. The movie was neither about ‘how girls frame men in a false rape case’. I am not denying that the possibilities of foul play in real life are endless. BUT it wasn’t the case in this movie! It was made quite clear who was wronged.

If you have seen the film carefully, you would know that the courtroom case was about Rajveer claiming that Meenal attempted to murder him. And the audience KNEW it was rubbish. The prosecutor used tools like character assassination & money factors to show she attempted to murder him while Deepak Sehgal’s job was to nullify those evidences and prove that she hit the guy as self-defence. Which was the truth. Both parties had witnesses. Meenal had TWO witnesses to support her claims but the prosecutor wasn’t successful in proving them irrelevant. While Rajbir’s side had witnesses & footages that were easily nullified by Deepak Sehgal. That was the biggest difference.

And also, I don’t get why you are underestimating Rajveer’s outburst in the end. He considered Meenal to be of ‘loose morals’ because she drank, partied with him, shared sex jokes & he confessed that a girl like her is a ‘raand’ & deserved to be treated that way.

And if you still didn’t understand here it is: “Did the accused agree that she said NO”. That was the whole point of the article.

And I do not need to go thru all the story to find out what is what and here. I understood the surmise of the article coz there is something important missing in the trial i.e evidence and that the evidence that “she said NO”

Who was the accused in this case? The case was about Rajveer claiming that Meenal attempted to murder him and not Meenal’s charge against Rajveer of rape/molestation. There is a difference! The accused in this scenario was Meenal and she did say NO. She did have witnesses to support her claim. I am sorry but how in the world you are commenting on a movie which you have not watched?

haha..Sam let me tell you..I was a male feminist like you seven years before. I used to argue madly like you are doing, then suddenly the feminist crap was exposed to me. I will just tell you one thing, you don’t be in utopia that you can’t be accused a rape case ever. If a woman’s verbal statement alone is considered to punish you, will that be good?

It’s funny how from this entire comment, you pulled out one line and commented on that as per your convenience.

76% ? Please quote your source if we are talking statistics.

Also, please add the exact number of rape cases in India – do you how many rape cases go unreported here? Do you know how many women are pressured to take back reports because they are threatened if they don’t, they will have acids thrown to their face or their siblings/ families will be kidnapped? If we are talking about false rape cases, I pray you do a clear analysis of ALL those false cases and then talk.

Please wake up and smell the coffee! OUR country is in a sad state where women are fighting for basic human dignity.

And yes, articles like these are the reason why movies like PINK need to be made again and again. Because people like you missed the point or derailed it.

The film was NOT a lawyer’s guide on ‘how to tackle a rape/molestation case in the best way’. The film didn’t claim to show about ‘how a judge should make a judgment on a rape case in the best way’. Watch the movie again -the false witnesses were nullified by Deepak s arguments. The video shown didn’t prove anything, it was just a false rubbish commentary by prosecutor who wanted to twist things. The clincher of this case was when Rajvir said the word Raand and said such kind of girls deserved to be treated that way.

Judges are not fools, they get it when the witnesses or any other person is lying. The judge got the message crystal clear.

The film never talked about whether boys right or girls right, infact Amitabh character who fought for girls even did not comment on incident how the girls behaved, why they went, how did happen, whether girls did right or wrong
The film raised some serious questions 1) how people understand women gestures 2) How much freedom does women have, at same time how much freedom other race men enjoying in this society 3) how do parents/people teach/treat girls and boys while they grow
Director wrote an incident which happening more generally in our present society. director intention is not to prove girls are right.He showed consequences of this particular incident, where women are helpless in tackling the situation just because of society PERSPECTIVE towards women.

not sure who wrote this above review, “whether girls went for money, did it on willingness, whether boys took a chance as they got some option from one of the common friends, as both of them drunk, even girls says no..male ego says, what happens yar, this bitch came for money, she being fucked by many guys, she is not a virgin, how come she says NO after taking money.”
but you need to understand
NO means NO… one human being not supposed force, do sex, make a harm physically, do kidnap,molest them..who cares..don’t you think this behavior won’t seen not even in ANIMALS, please respect other human being, each individual have right to say NO at any point of time, once you understand NO rest is just business deal..
Men force women into prostitution, make videos of (girlfriend, wife, other relations) with force, many of them uploaded on porn sites, make physical harassment, molest girls,women in buses,trains etc..thinks it’s their right to do sex with wife at any point of time after marriage whether she is willing or not doesn’t matter, force sisters,mother what other men in family willing to do etc…GUYS please awake and respect …they are after all other human race on this earth … infact they are much rquired for Men to make their lives complete.

“Men force women into prostitution, make videos of (girlfriend, wife, other relations) with force, many of them uploaded on porn sites, make physical harassment, molest girls,women in buses,trains etc..”
Oh really then escort services and cam-dolls on porn sites who behave provocatively are imposed action you say? Not by women who try to earn an extra buck to spend on flash, well their independence? A huge number of modern educated women say that they do it out of their own accord… Also do sites like Ashleymaddison, Adultfriendfinder etc. have only male subscribers?
You have also emotionally blabbered “thinks it’s their right to do sex with wife at any point of time after marriage whether she is willing or not doesn’t matter,” Then, Naveen,I take your statement to support,my conclusion “rest IS just business deal” Yes indeed. I’m glad you said that. A man who maintains his wife or “the bitch” as you said who came”for money” with HIS money has every right to demand , then a return on HIS investment…
Also please, please Naveen don’t tell me (however more of a pathetic subservient person you might be to impress women) that women DO NOT send out hints, or are lust less.. Since you also compared about “how much freedom women have” I’m sure you’ll say that after having overlooked the gynocentric laws and the reservations Check out, not much, the sections 354 in the IPC or the next metro you are traveling by, or a Gujarat government job portal, or the Reservation bill or even the Maternity Benefits 6 months salary) that your female colleagues get,.. you know.. paid vacations, while you are/might toil away and clear their backlog…Hmm? Happy?

What you have gained by writing this article is nothing but your 15 minutes of fame on the shoulders of the ills in society …… your article reeks of male chauvinism most of all where you mention which “decent” woman would go to a man’s room ! When you are with your friends do you not go to peoples houses or is that solely an idea for men to enjoy …..Actually I know the kind of people you belong to , the kind that like slinging mud on the other sex when your inherent beliefs and inadequacies are exposed, in fact I am sure you must have quite been one of the rapists or had the similar mind-sets when you were young ( I can only hope you are incompetent now ! ) and hope you do not bear children to pass on your crappy logic. What is wrong in society is the so called literates like you , who manage to gain an education but do not manage to obtain knowledge , you do not get the freedom of woman or for that matter man is irrelevant of his/her sex , it is related to the mind set .

After all of this I feel I would be wasting my time and its unfortunate my day has been slightky made worst by coming across your blog ! minutes I WILL NEVER GET BACK ! GOOD LUCK AND MAY U NEVER PROCREATE

Your comment proves that feminists can go to any extent to justify murder. That is why you are dangerous to the society. Proves my point actually. Punishing someone because a someone else says something in court is utter nuisance.

[…] in a resort room) for which the trial was held. Surprisingly, many people who had commented on this article believed that a crime committed later can be the proof of another crime that might have taken place […]

So you mean that a woman should wait, till she gets raped, and not defend herself? wow, do tell the women in your life the same( wife, daughter, mother, gf) , that if someone starts to grab them, they should just stand and wait for him to actually rape them, and only then think about defending themselves. hats off to you maan. RESPECT!

After reading your article, I wonder if what you are trying to say is- its not fair, to be a ‘cock-teaser’ or a ‘coquette’ to a man. Generally speaking, from the perspective of an individual who has been teased, aroused and left unsatisfied, the anger, disappointment can be understood, if we want to genuinely try to understand and empathize with the men who didnt get the word “No”, than simply get in an idealistic fight. True. So he can hate her for the rest of her life/ give her the stink eye when paths cross again/ He can learn from this experience and start issuing cautionary warnings when he goes on a date saying “hey look, if you’re coming up to my room, you better go all the way, cause once my blood starts pooling downsouth, I wont be able to stop”, “Or I hate coquettes”- any of these things. But instead the tone is one of violence- of crossing a person’s rights and boundaries- even before Minal hits him. Let me explain: Its more about ‘how dare you make a fool out of me by enjoying thus far and now not letting me satisfy me’. This became apparent in the scene when he DEMANDS an apology from Minal- he isnt getting angry about being teased or explaining himself or saying how violent and damaging that incident got for him. It was about power. Cause when she does apologize repeatedly after being KIDNAPPED they still go ahead, laugh, enjoy her plight and abuse her. I do believe you’re onto something- cause I’m a big believer that post feminist movement men have been treated unfairly too in individual cases by feminist groups treating it in a general- ‘men are bad, so he is wrong’ manner. Having said that, in cases about date rape LIKE THIS ONE, it needs to be understood, that when men and women have regular not overly creative sex if you know what I mean, the power lies with the man. He has a penis. He thrusts. He can stop if he wants. Physically speaking, a woman may not be strong enough in that position to do so. So if a man changes his mind somewhere along growing more intimate whether to go ahead or no, he has rights and usually, the strength to do something about it. A woman? she will have to rely on men being educated: a boy must first learn to have the physical capacity to stop before going ahead with the act- or he isnt ready yet for sex- he’s doing something else- playing with a toy perhaps. If youre saying a woman must always know beforehand whether she wants to touch all the bases in one night, I dont think thats possible!! In Pink, the men had experienced helplessness in that moment of being refused. The pushing ahead anyway is psychologically equivalent to a child throwing a tantrum because he doesn’t like being told No. While what the women did was tease- immaturely or knowingly, what the men did- was try to “undo” the helplessness they experienced and in some ways fight the burden of responsibility that lie on their shoulders when having sex. Men and women can both tease and both have power in different departments. Both are going to go through the emotion of helplessness- he doesnt like me, why hasnt he called, etc; vs why did she not feel comfortable going all the way, why hasnt she called, etc. But when analyzed, it comes down to judging if its an act of violence- has a person been forced against the will?- with being clouded by the judge’s (the person judging- you, me, anyone) extent of capacity to experience general helplessness in life that helps us grow up. Change cannot happen that can work for both genders by being pragmatic. Change requires imagination, idealism that can filter down to something that can happen in practice- it needs to start with black and white.

Your article wasn’t only about court proceedings. I was referring to the second half of your article. For a moment there I thought you were interested in having a discussion. But judging from your go see this article on non verbals to a professional who deals with it everyday, its clear to me, you’re a part of another ‘ism’ currently. Feminism vs Masculinism or another ‘ism’. I’ve wasted my time. thank you nevertheless for your response, lot of effort put in your blog and comments, commendable- regardless of me disagreeing with your point of view.

Mr.Sadhukhan, I patiently read through your post and all the following comments, some distasteful, some downright uncouth and misogynistic, some with valid points. I just had a few questions I thought i should ask you.
A) have you known/spoken to women who’ve been in a situation where a man is ‘making a move’ on them, alone in a room? If you have, have they been able to describe to you what happens inside their brain and body during this?
B) have you given a thought to the fact that the ratio of violence against women by men is Far higher than the opposite.. World over. Maybe this well established fact makes normal logical minds bend towards believing the women prima facie? And not their ‘weaponized tears’?
C) have the rohtak sisters harmed someone you know, since that seems to be your only comeback as an example of ‘women’s atrocities’. Have you considered, there’s only one such rohtak sisters case where women decided to fight back(granted in a criminal manner), while we hear of molesting and rape of women almost every day?
D) are you able to walk out of your house by yourself after dark, without the slightest fear of any woman?

Thanks for reading comments and my article.
Answers – a – No. But I have never asked a man too. To be forthright a woman needs to voice her opinion and probably come out of the situation quickly. That can’t justify murder as shown in Pink.
b – Ratio of Violence worldover – when men can’t even file complaint against women for violence then what ratio are you talking about? Only one sided data is supposed to be no data.
c – Why do I need to know someone personally to protest against a crime? Did you protest against Nirbhaya incident only after knowing her personally? And how does it prove that there is only one Rohtak Sisters and no one else? Because I personally know many such women criminals who are roaming free without any case against them, simply because they are women. I gave Rohtak sisters example because that is what people may know.
d – Lol..crime is not gender dependent. So don’t ask if I fear women when I go out at night. There are certain things as personal safety as well. But if I am ever attacked or brutally killed by any woman (as happened to many other men) no law will change ever for that incident. But when a woman is attacked laws in our country changes. I follow certain norms to keep myself safe, but asking any woman to follow anything is a crime, I know.

“But I am trying to locate that fortunate guy who being a stranger to woman had met a woman first time in his room and the woman willingly went with him (unless of course she had other intentions), I am also yet to see any decent woman who would do that. The reason given by three girls was they ‘thought’ those three strangers were decent.”

This part was enough to understand your pre-historic mentality. Didn’t bother to read hereafter. So if a group of guys meet another gang, in a rock show, where one guy from group A knows another guy from group B (schoolmates), and then group B invites group A to share a drink, in a resort, that’s all usual; dare I say, decent. Replace one group of guys with a group of girls, and all hell breaks lose, cos clearly, nobody, in India, has seen a “decent” group of girls want to have some fun which guys are free to do everyday. Though you try to balance by saying that we are not here to judge anybody’s character, but then this piece is so provocative, that your entire arguments (whatever you wrote) lose its character.

Even before but more so after the sensational Nirbhaya gang-rape case of December 2012 India has been portrayed as the rape capital of the world where violence against women is enshrined. But what do the numbers tell us?

Other countries in fact have much higher rates of rape than India, but the media for their own reasons sensationalize the ones in India – more on that later. According to this “country-by-country rape statistics”[1] India has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world something one would not know if one listened to the media reports. It proves the adage “don’t believe everything you read in the paper.”

The rate of rape is determined by dividing the total number of reported rapes by the total population and the units of measure are the number of rapes per 100,000 people. Thus even though India may seem to have a rather large number of rapes reported in any given year but considering that India has a population of 1.3 billion people the rate of rape (number of rapes divided by 1.3 billion) becomes very small. And even if as some people claim that many rapes go unreported that even if we double or even triple the number the rate would still be low compared to many so-called First World countries.

Yet another misandrist movie…. If no means no then it should also be clear that there are NO free lunches in this world and that boys are NOT obliged to be an unpaid chaperones or spenders or valets. Don’t and don’t tell as if women don’t ask to be asked out, never seduce, to have money spent on them, or as if they are devoid of lust do not touch an acquainted man’s arms in a conversation.…. Yet of course it’s BOYS only who should stoically not take hints or expect anything in return… Valid points raised by the Public prosecutor will obviously be dimmed and raged at… In fact the movie tries to make the audience classify characters ( esp. men) broadly as-
a) “Good”- people like Sehgal, the ACP, the landlord, (emotional catalysts) Andrea’s ex boyfriend ( who was her go-to )et al unquestioningly helping the girls … (Not to mention the crew of the team in reality as they represent pre-planned Feminist agenda)
b)Cowards- Javed, because although he had earlier given a loan to Falak who was for obvious reasons, dating him, (now is paying him back again as she had let go off him yet as mentioned by Meenal “she still loved him”)he became practical and pulled out her support hence the adjective… Reverse the genders and you’ll find something that the girl is lauded and said that
c) People who should be disliked – Public prosecutor(how dare he ask the right questions at the right time with the right evidence, somewhat similar response like the Nirbhaya case lawyers.) female SP (I actually read a comment somewhere “why woman bad and not helping women”), the OC who did not take their kidnapping complaint, Meenal’s father for being the archetype conservative dad,
d) To be hated- Of course Rajveer and gang…. The guys who were there, esp. for expecting a return on their investment, (although they had insisted, the women could have said No then and there since they were so mature!) not being stoical and “incorrectly” assuming that the smiles and the jokes were not signals (i.e. give and no take), they were expected to be otherwise there for the girls to have a good time on free booze .and food and had not the incident taken place, perhaps a good resort stay.. for speaking “indecently” to falak on the phone (he could have settled it with a sorry from meenal.. many would say that his “massive” ego was hurt obviously overlooking the same of Meenal and co.) and obviously the guy who kidnapped (I’m sure the public would have asked for his emasculation were the character real! Of course I agreee with this one too.. the director after all inserted it to ramify the fact that the boys were bad, Powerful men unless helping women are no less than criminals to the belligerent mindset)

Then by following the progressive moral (double) standards set by Mr. Sehgal (actually the “concerned’ writers of the film) also following that line of thought from the film, “Progressive” women should and should then always think with their “progressive” brains before going with strangers/acquaintances, (even if it be thorough a friend’s introduction)cracking seductive dirty jokes,or yet asking divorced others for monetary favors., rather than justifying that with a sarcastic lecture on morality and questionable character…. “Safe” indeed!!But then given the flavour-of- the- day feminist issue of the movie, and its ale protagonist being the face of the “Beti bacaho beti padhao campaign”, it leaves no stone unturned in order for the overly concerned makers to obviously VILIFY men (complete with the stereotypical audacious behavior of the boys to the influential relatives to the charade of kidnapping the girl to intimidate her, giving the GYNOCENTRIC 354 verdict etc.) or to sermonize behavioral lectures to boys only and justify the woman giving her ample benefit of doubt for a mortal physical assault (in order to justify their mortally injure a man as self defense and standing clear of charges) and OBVIOUSLY using reverse psychological gas-lighting techniques obviously the screaming, tears of the girls irritation of the guy and emotional rhetoric to SWAY the audience and the droning sarcastic Moral code monologue by Deepak Sehgal’s character… Not to forget the undertone of “if boys can do it why can’t we?” Surely according to the swayed majority it’s every Guy and not every girl who should learn from this movie… as the latter stands justified in the public eye… that’s well marketed feminism… But then thy are girls , progressive girls and however dubious they might be, they stand justified… How dare we doubt tears and moralities?

I will answer your question. You ask how the “attempt to murder” charge is justified. Let’s assume you are a handsome young “decent” man and I am a prostitute, or a woman of loose character, given that your teeny brain probably equates the two. I try to sexually assault you by touching you inappropriately, kiss you consistently against your wishes and you are physically bound or unable to stop me. So, what do you do? Stand there and get molested by this woman? Or do you try to defend yourself using some other means (since you alone can’t stop me with your bare limbs)?

To comment on another absurd point you made — “women tears”. When you are wronged, you cry. It is human nature. Secondly, the lack of evidence you talk about either means that you wrote this “review” after glancing through three others and gave yourself a voice or that you have the intellectual capacity of a chair. The evidence included the fact that the report was written much later IN RESPONSE TO the woman’s report, as a result of which HER report was disbanded. The case is “Meenal Arora vs State” which means that she’s on the defense. Shocking – that means that Rajveer Singh is on the prosecution, and his lawyer must prove that Meenal Arora is guilty, “without any reasonable doubt” – which HIS lawyer failed to do.

On behalf of the “empowered gender”, I want to tell you that since you clearly lack the emotional capacity to fathom these complicated issues, you should probably grab a few books or read the headlines once in a while before you stomp across with your waste of a digital footprint. I’m sure you feel thoroughly ignored by a society in which the male gender has historically been chronicled as the dominant one, which by the way, is continued to this day. Take a walk in a small town or a village instead of sitting behind your computer in an air-conditioned household being fed by your female family members. Reality might dawn on you.

Obviously I will not wait and will come out but not by murdering you. My point in this article is a woman’s verbal comment is given more weight compared to evidences which is dangerous in criminal case conviction. We have seen how Bangalore mass molestation story was projected by media even without any evidence. When we give more importance to someone’s verbal statement then a lot of innocents will be punished and it will create a dangerous social situation.

“report was written much later” – Yes, but where do you see a guy’s complaint against a woman is registered in first place? Fact is that guys are ever ridiculed and prevented from raising complaints. Also he was grievously hurt so it was natural for him to delay. Also in first place he didn’t want to raise complaints. Probably he didn’t want court cases but was forced to at a later point in time.

The reason it was Minal Arora vs State was it was a criminal case. That is what happens in dowry cases or rape cases too. The movie was at technical fault as there should have been two separate cases filed by two individuals. It is upto the court though to consider two as one or separate. Normally in our court procedure only the girl’s cases are accepted and not the boys’ one. Go visit our courts you will know.

Regarding proving Meenal as guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and his lawyer failing to do could at the most resulted in her release. But the problem is here the court punished the man. Now consider fake dowry or rape cases that you women file. In those cases even if the guy proves that it was the woman who was at fault the courts never punish the woman. Only recently after out constant protest we see in some false rape cases courts punish women. But you know what happens to these cases later in higher courts? They all are dismissed for some reason or other.

Your last para very much says why women should not be empowered. Because no matter how much they get, they always want more. Here based on someone’s verbal statement and some tears (without any video evidence) one person is punished with a criminal offence and you still shout oppression. ‘Fed by my female family members’….haha women no matter how empowered or educated they are they don’t want to take complete care of their family. They always want to depend on some man. We have enough evidence of that from empowered nations. I have another article on higher education of women, see that. Higher education to women is like ornaments, they don’t want to participate in workforce in any case.

Actually I will not say ‘Shame You’…you feminists expose yourself royally every time you comment like this and think it was very intelligent of you. Logical people will know what kind of crap it was. So keep these coming..

I will help all the other readers right now by stating the obvious – your inherent bitterness is making me question where you’re getting your ‘facts’ from. The reason you’re so angry about my comment about being fed by you female companions is because you are actually dependent on them. And the fact that you said, “they don’t want to take complete care of their family” helps me a lot because it clearly means that you think that it is OUR responsibility to take care of you. That is not equality. you are putting yourself on a pedestal by saying that someone else should feed you and take care of you, as do millions of other men around the country. And that is the attitude that needs to be changed. This attitude is preventing education and healthcare for girls in the 21st century and your privileged brain cannot set your ego aside to see that.
“Higher education to women is like ornaments, they don’t want to participate in workforce in any case” – this is a prejudice, not a fact. Please stop behaving like a child who does not the difference.

Finally, I’m not sure you understood the movie – HE was guilty. So HE was punished. Please cite your facts for future reference.

See how skewed is equality for you. Men have been taking complete care of their women for ages. They not only provided for and protected women but also helped them all possible ways in household work. Today, while there is no law that can force a woman to do household work, there are laws to enforce men taking complete care of their women. The reason I mentioned ‘complete care’ is that many men have taken that kindda care for ages, why can’t any single empowered woman do that. To start with they can marry uneducated and unemployed men and then keep maid etc to take care of them. But when we reverse the gender roles and demand such things from empowered women, that becomes oppression for you.

Empowerment for women is only one sided appeasement.

Also you say, he was guilty but what was the evidence presented? whatever happened inside the room was not shown as video evidence to court. So court should not have decided a case based on that. The movie showed it to you but that is not evidence, so you can’t consider him guilty.

[…] convey, but emotional Indians are fooled easily into believing such lies as they already did in Pink, Neerja, Section 375, Padman or Mission Mangal. Even a web series Mission Over Mars (M.O.M.) was no […]